15.

838 Research Seminar in Marketing

Professor John R. Hauser
Spring 2011
Tuesdays 2:30 pm 5:30 pm
Richard Derbes Conference Room (E62-526)
Who must take this Seminar

The recently adopted MIT Sloan Marketing PhD guidelines require that all PhD students currently enrolled in the marketing PhD program register for 15.838. Exceptions are granted only for
medical, birthing, and bereavement leave and for students in the Fall semester of their job-search
year.
Goal of the Seminar

We seek to help you

1. Define a publishable research topic.
2. Position and defend that topic within one of the philosophies of science.
3. Use reliable and valid measures to ground your research, test your research, and/or apply
your research.
4. Develop and evaluate a nomological network of causes and effects, whether implicit or
explicit, that summarizes your research.
These goals cut across the subfields in marketing including marketing science, behavioral, and
economics-motivated approaches. Although some topic sessions focus on specific subfields, our
goal is to understand these subfields from the perspectives of philosophies of science and measurement. For example, within these contexts we will examine
1.
2.
3.
4.

Constructed preference
Planckian vs. Princetonian perspectives on behavioral research
Structural economic models
Machine learning approaches

The readings illustrate approaches; they do not cover the entire field. Your primary task is to
evaluate whether and how each of the assigned papers advance (or do not advance) science and
whether or not the papers have used careful measurement methods.
Readings

Ive ordered a copy of the Shadish, Cook, and Campbell textbook for each of you. You will get it
on the first day of classes. All other readings are available in pdf format on a DVD that you will
receive from me. Most of these pdfs are from the MIT Libraries. As a registered MIT student,
you have copyright access for your own use. (Please do not distribute or post any pdfs that have
15.838, Research Seminar in Marketing, Spring 2011

restrictions.)
For most topic sessions the readings are divided into one or more of the following categories.
1. Common-ground readings. These papers give us a common ground for discussion. All
students should read these papers. It may seem like a lot of reading, especially for the
first session, but you can skim some of these to distill the essential philosophical arguments. You should be prepared to discuss the essential arguments (but not all details) for
all of these papers.
2. Group assignments. We will split these papers among seminar participants. Everyone
should read the abstract of all of these papers, but each student is required to read only a
subset these papers. Prior to each topic session we will decide together who will read
which paper. Your responsibility for assigned papers is to be prepared to present and discuss the essential arguments of the paper.
3. Example articles. Philosophy is fine, but you can only appreciate arguments when they
are applied. In the indicated topic sessions you should choose one (or two) example articles. You should read and critique the chosen articles with respect to the topic of the
session. You do not need to read all details of the article, only those relevant to the topic
session. For example, if you choose a mathematical article (in the philosophy of science
topic session) you can assume that all proofs and derivations are correct. You should focus for that topic session on (a) which philosophy justifies the paper and (2) whether the
paper succeeds within that philosophy.
4. Background. Ive provided many background articles for those students who wish to explore the topic in more detail. I hope they will be valuable at some point in your career.
(There are a few copyrighted articles and books listed. They are not provided.)
The syllabus contains many more articles than we will have time to read. The seminar is designed to help you in your career and I wanted to give you as much helpful material as possible.
As the seminar evolves we will tailor the assignments to get the maximum impact balancing
depth of understanding and breadth of topics. As a rough guideline, 15.838 is listed in the MIT
catalog as 3-0-6, that is, 3 classroom hours, no lab hours, and 6 hours of preparation for each topic session. A full reading of a technical article should take, on average, about 2 hours about
three per week. However, you should be able to distill the essence of an article in less time than
2 hours. This is your seminar. Well tailor the topics and the assignments for maximum impact
on your careers. That is, we will focus on deep understanding, not breadth of reading.

15.838, Research Seminar in Marketing, Spring 2011

Topic Sessions

The MIT class schedule includes 12 Tuesdays. However, one Tuesday is in SIP when many of
you have substantial grading responsibilities for your TAs. I also realize that we may move faster
or slower than one topic per session. The schedule is flexible; we can adjust on the fly. My
open-loop prediction is:
Advice on How to Define a Topic and Write an Article
February 8. Philosophy of Science
February 15. Design of Experiments, Reliability, Validity
March 1. The Art of Asking Questions and Scale Development
March 8. External Validity and Demand Artifacts
March 15. SIP. Catch-up day or separate meetings if necessary.
6. March 29. Mediation and Nomological Networks
7. April 5. Constructed Preference
8. April 12. Max Planck Institute vs. Princeton School of Thought
April 26. MSI Conference. Catch-up day or separate meetings if necessary.
9. May 3. Structural Models
10. May 10. Quant meets Behavioral
11. Potential extra session if we move rapidly. Machine Learning as Measurement

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

February 1.

Integrated Exercise

My goal is to help you become a better scientist and to write papers that are likely to have an impact. With luck, this will also help you get a job, earn tenure, and be famous. Throughout the
seminar I want you to relate each topic sessions discussion to your own research. Your research
can either be a thesis paper or a Part II paper (see new guidelines for the marketing PhD general
exam). The following numbers correspond to session numbers. These assignments are tentative.
Together we will refine the assignments to fit your research interests and your career goals.
1. Define a topic (February 1). Identify your research focus for the semester. Dont worry, it
will evolve.
2. Philosophy of science (February 8). Tentatively choose the philosophy of science that will
drive your research and be prepared to defend your research within that philosophy.
Write a one-half-to-one-page defense of your research using philosophy-of-science ideas.
3. Measurement (February 15). Even if your research is pure theory, decide how you will establish the reliability and validity of your measures, constructs, or theory. Write a onehalf-to-one-page description of how you will do this.
4. Asking questions (March 1). Assume you will collect qualitative and quantitative data. We
will customize an assignment that lets you collect qualitative data (3-4 respondents) relevant to your research. As a exercise you should also develop, and be prepared to defend,
a short questionnaire relevant to your research (and drawn from issues identified in the
qualitative research).
15.838, Research Seminar in Marketing, Spring 2011

5. External validity (March 8). Examine threats to validity for the theory and measurements
in your research, including alternative explanations and demand artifacts. In one-half-toone page, defend your ability to convince the reader that your research has external validity.
6. Nomological networks (March 29). Establish the nomological network relevant to your
theory. Develop a circle-and-arrow diagram detailing the nomological network.
7. Constructed preference (April 5). In one-half-to-one page, relate your research to either
constructed preference or introspection. That is, what are you assuming about how consumers learn.
8. Schools of thought (April 12). The Planckian and the Princetonian philosophies can be
viewed as opposed or complementary (is everything is a shade of grey). In one-half-toone page, place your research on an analogous stylized continuum.
9. Structural models (May 3). Relate your research to structural models. This particular assignment will be finalized later.
10. Quant meets behavioral (May 10). If you are doing quant research, identify the behavioral
component. If you are doing behavioral research, identify the quant component. Plan
how you will integrate quantitative and behavioral perspectives in your research. Summarize your positioning in one-half-to-one-page.
Please note that there are other exercises discussed in the readings section of this syllabus.
Those exercises are relatively short, but important.
Classroom Values

MIT Sloan has recently adopted standards on classroom values. Specifically, it is the policy of
the MIT Sloan School that:

Students are expected to arrive promptly on time and to stay for the entire class.
Faculty are expected to begin and end class on time.
Laptops and e-readers not be open in the classroom except with explicit permission of the
faculty.
Cell phones and PDAs are not be used or permitted to ring in the classroom.
Students are expected to attend all classes.
Faculty will articulate how these rules apply in their class as well as how the rules will be
enforced.

Because the majority of the course packet will be delivered electronically, you are welcom to
have a laptop or e-reader open during class discussion in order to have the readings on hand. The
laptop or e-reader should not be used for any other purpose except with the permission of the instructor.

15.838, Research Seminar in Marketing, Spring 2011

Revised General Exam and Seminar Guidelines

During the fall of 2010, the marketing faculty developed and endorsed revised guidelines on the
general exam and the two-per-year marketing seminars. Our goal is to improve both the generalexam and research-seminar experiences for all students. We can discuss clarifications on the first
day of class. These guidelines are on the readings-packet disk for the first topic session.
Summary.

Together we will explore research. It should be fun.

15.838, Research Seminar in Marketing, Spring 2011

Readings for 15.838 Research Seminar in Marketing, Spring 2011

Topic 1. Getting Started (Tentative target date: February 1)
Advice on How to Define a Topic and Write an Article

It may seem like a lot of reading, but these are all philosophical arguments that we will
discuss. You should be able to read these five articles relatively quickly.
Common-ground Readings

1. Shugan, Steve (2003), Defining Interesting Research Problems, Marketing Science,

22(1), 1-15.
2. Varian, Hal (2009), How to Build an Economic Model in Your Spare Time? Working
Paper, University of California at Berkeley.
3. Sutton, Robert I., & Staw, Barry M. (1995), What Theory Is Not, Administrative
Science Quarterly, 40, 3 (Sept), 371-384.
4. Holbrook, Morris B. (1986), A Note On Sadomasochism In The Review Process: I Hate
When That Happens, Journal of Marketing, 50, 3, (July), 104-108.
5. Bem, Darryl J. (2000), Writing the Empirical Article, In Darley, J. M., Zanna, M. P., &
Roediger III, H. L. (Eds) (2002). The Compleat Academic: A Career Guide, (Washington, DC: American Psychological Association).
6. Rathbone, Robert R. (1967), Communicating Technical Information, (Reading MA: Addison Wesley Publishing Company). There is no pdf on disk due to copyright issues. This
book is not required reading. But if you are ever to write a scientific paper, this is a must
read. I view it as the single most valuable book for my career.
Example Articles

Pick any one of the following articles and discuss what the article accomplishes. Concentrate on the net contribution relative to whatever philosophy you feel is appropriate. Assume all proofs are correct. For the purposes of discussion you do not need to understand
either the proofs or the subtleties of the mathematical arguments. If you have read this
article before, or even discussed it, feel free to choose it for discussion. However, you
should coordinate the example articles among yourselves. An article should not be chosen by two or more people.
1. Wernerfelt, Birger, Class Pricing, Marketing Science, 27, 5, (September-October), 755763.
2. Hauser, John R., Duncan I. Simester, and Birger Wernerfelt (1997), "Side Payments in
Marketing," Marketing Science, 16, 3, 246-255.
3. Simester, Duncan, and Juanjuan Zhang (2010), Why Are Bad Products So Hard to
Kill? Management Science, 56, 7, (July), 1161-1179.
4. Goldfarb, Avi and Catherine Tucker (2011), Online Display Advertising: Targeting and
Obtrusiveness, forthcoming Marketing Science.
5. Ariely, Dan, George Loewenstein, and Draen Prelec (2003). Coherent Arbitrariness:
Stable Demand Curves Without Stable Preferences, Quarterly Journal of Economics,
15.838, Research Seminar in Marketing, Spring 2011

118, 1, (February), 73-105.

6. Guadagni, Peter M. and John D. C. Little (1983), A Logit Model of Brand Choice Calibrated on Scanner Data, Marketing Science, 2, 3, (Summer), 203-238.
7. Axelrod, Robert and W. D. Hamilton (1981), The Evolution of Cooperation, Science,
211, 4489, (March 27), 1390-1396.
Topic 2. Philosophy of Science (Tentative target date: February 8)
Common-ground Readings

1. Kuhn, Thomas S. (1970), The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2E (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press). PDF on disk from International Encyclopedia of Unified
Science. I know it is a bit long, but it is important.
2. Platt, John R. (1964), Strong Inference, Science, 146, (October 16), 347-53.
Group Assignments (Specific readings to be assigned to specific students)

1. Greenwald, Anthony G., Anthony R. Pratkanis, Michael R. Leippe, and Michael H.

Baumgardner, "Under What Conditions Does Theory Obstruct Research Progress?" Psychological Review, 93 (1986), 216-229.
2. Little, John D. C. (1970), Models and Managers: The Concept of a Decision Calculus
Management Science, 16 (8), April, 466-85. Reprinted 2004.
a. Little, John D. C. (2004), Comments on `Models and Managers: The Concept of
a Decision Calculus: Managerial Models for Practice, Management Science, 50,
12, Supplement, (December), 1854-1860.
3. Golder, Peter N. (2000), Historical Method in Marketing Research with New Evidence
on Long-term Market Share Stability, Journal of Marketing Research, 37, 2, (May),
156-172.
4. Hirschman, Elizabeth (1986), Humanistic Inquiry in Marketing Research: Philosophy,
Method, and Criteria, Journal of Marketing Research, (August), 237-249
a. Hirschman, Elizabeth (1985), Scientific Style and the Conduct of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research, 12, (September), 225-239. BACKGROUND ONLY

5. Calder, Bobby J., Lynn W. Phillips, and Alice M. Tybout (1981), Designing Research
for Application, Journal of Consumer Research, 8, 197-207.
a. Calder, Bobby J. and Alice M. Tybout (1987), What Consumer Research Is ,
Journal of Consumer Research, 14, (June), 136-140. BACKGROUND ONLY
6. Hauser, John R. (1997), The Role of Mathematical Models in the Study of Product Development, Proceedings of the 14th Paul D. Converse Awards Conference, University
of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana, IL, 72-90. Okay, its not a classic like the others, but I
thought you might like to know my philosophy.
Background Readings (Not required. Useful to skim, but at least read the abstract.)

1. Day, George and David Montgomery (1999), Charting New Directions for Marketing,
Journal of Marketing, 63, Special Issue, 3-13.
15.838, Research Seminar in Marketing, Spring 2011

2. Wells, William (1993), Discovery-Oriented Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer

Research, 19, (March), 489-504.
3. Lehmann, Donald (1996), Knowledge Generalization and the Conventions of Consumer
Research: A Study in Inconsistency, Advances in Consumer Research, 23, 1-5.
http://www.acrwebsite.org/volumes/display.asp?id=7854.
4. Ferber, Robert (1977), Research by Convenience, Journal of Consumer Research, 4,
57-58.
5. Mahoney, Michael (1979), Psychology of the Scientist: An Evaluative Review, Social
Studies of Science, 9, 3, (August), 349-375.
6. Marewski, Julian N. and Henrik Olsson (2009), Beyond the Null Ritual: Formal Modeling of Psychological Processes, Journal of Psychology, 217, 1, 49-60.
Example Articles

Now that we have some formal reading in the philosophy of science, revisit the example
article that you read for Topic 1. Or, alternatively, choose an article that you have read in
another class or an article that you would like to read. Critique that article, more than one
article if you would like, with respect to Kuhns philosophy, Platts philosophy, and the
philosophy espoused in the specific articles assigned to your group. Write a oneparagraph summary of the articles philosophy and be prepared to defend your summary.
Topic 3. Design of Experiments, Reliability, Validity (Tentative target date: February 15)
Common-ground Readings

1. William R. Shadish, Thomas D. Cook, and Donald T. Campbell (2002), Experimental

and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inference, (New York, NY:
Houghton Mifflin, Inc.)
Chapter 1. Experiments and Generalized Causal Inference
Chapter 2. Statistical Conclusion Validity and Internal Validity
Chapter 3. Construct Validity and External Validity
Chapter 4. Quasi-Experimental Designs That Either Lack a Control Group or Lack
Pretest Observations on the Outcome
Chapter 5. Quasi-Experimental Designs That Use Both Control Groups and Pretests
2. Churchill, Gilbert A., Jr. (1979), A Paradigm for Developing Better Measures of Marketing Constructs, Journal of Marketing Research, 16 (February), 64-73.
Group Assignments (Specific readings to be assigned to specific students)

1. Campbell, Donald T. and Donald W. Fiske (1959), Convergent and Discriminant Validation by the Multitrait-Multimethod Matrix, Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81-105.
2. Peter, J. Paul (1981), Construct Validity: A Review of Basic Issues and Marketing Practices, Journal of Marketing Research, 18 (May), 133-145.
3. Peter, J. Paul (1979), Reliability: A Review of Psychometric Basics and Recent Marketing Practices, Journal of Marketing Research, 16 (February), 6-17.
15.838, Research Seminar in Marketing, Spring 2011

4. Silk, Alvin J. (1990), Questionnaire Design and Development with Appendix on Measurement Error, Reliability, and Validity, Harvard Business School Case Notes, August,
9-590-015. Not in readings packet due to copyright issues. It is not required. However, I
included the citation because it is a nice summary that you might want to have at some
time. If you would like, we can print out a hard copy of the appendix.
Example Articles

For Topics 1 and 2, you read an article. Not all of these articles focused on measurement.
If the article that you chose did not have a measurement component, or if you would like
to read another article. Otherwise, choose one of the articles from Topic Session 1. At
this point you have at least two articles to critique. Critique both of these articles with respect to measurement validity.
Prepare a one-half-to-one-page summary of your critique and be prepared to defend that
critique. In case you have trouble choosing additional articles, here are some from which
you can choose.
1. Simester, Duncan I, John R. Hauser, Birger Wernerfelt, and Roland Rust (2000), "Implementing Quality Improvement Programs Designed to Enhance Customer Satisfaction:
Quasi-experiments in the United States and Spain," Journal of Marketing Research, 37,
1, (February), 102-112.
2. Bem, Daryl J. (2010), Feeling the Future: Experimental Evidence for Anomalous Retroactive Influences on Cognition and Affect, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, forthcoming. This is the ESP-is-real article that is getting so much press.
a. Wagenmakers, Eric-Jan, Ruud Wetzels, Denny Borboom, and Han van der Maas
(2010), Why Psychologists Must Change the Way They Analyze Their Data:
The Case of Psi, Comment on the Bem JPSP 2010 article on ESP.
Topic 4. The Art of Asking Questions and Scale Development
(Tentative target date: March 1)
Collecting Your Own Data or Deciding if Your Data is Worth Using (Topic 4a)
Common-ground Readings

1. Schaeffer, Nora Cate and Stanley Presser (2003), The Science of Asking Questions,
Annual Review of Sociology, 29, 65-88.
2. Calder, Bobby (1977), Focus Groups and the Nature of Qualitative Research, Journal
of Marketing Research, 14, 3, (August), 353-364.
Group Assignments (Specific readings to be assigned to specific students)

1. Schwartz, Norbert (1999), Self-reports: How The Questions Shape The Answers,
American Psychologist, 54, 2, (February), 93-105.
2. Rogelberg, Steven G. & Stanton, Jeffrey M. (2007), Understanding And Dealing With
Survey Non-Response, Organizational Research Methods, 10, 2, (April), 195-209.
3. Morwitz, Vicki, Eric Johnson, and David Schmittlein (1993), Does Measuring Intent
15.838, Research Seminar in Marketing, Spring 2011

Change Behavior? Journal of Consumer Research, 20, 1, (June), 46-61.

4. Bickart, Barbara A. (1993), Carryover and Backfire Effects in Marketing Research,
Journal of Marketing Research, 30, 1, (February), 52-62.
5. Payne, Stanley (1951), The Art of Asking Questions, (Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ). Not in readings packet and not required reading. But if you are ever to write or
critique a questionnaire, this is a must read.
Scale Development and Methods to Establish Reliability (Topic 4b)
Common-ground Readings

1. Peterson, Robert A. (1994), A Meta-Analysis Of Cronbach's Coefficient Alpha, Journal of Consumer Research, 21, 2, (September), 381-391.
Group Assignments (Specific readings to be assigned to specific students)

1. Perreault, William D., Jr. and Laurence E. Leigh (1989), "Reliability of Nominal Data
Based on Qualitative Judgments," Journal of Marketing Research, 26, (May), 135-48.
2. Rust, Roland and Bruce Cooil (1994), Reliability Measures for Qualitative Data: Theory
and Implications, Journal of Marketing Research, 31, (February), 1-14.
3. Heeler, Roger M. and Michael L. Ray (1972), Measure Validation in Marketing, Journal of Marketing Research, 9, (November), 361-370.
4. Gerbing, David and James Anderson (1988), "An Updated Paradigm for Scale Development Incorporating Unidimensionality and Its Assessment," Journal of Marketing Research, 25, 2, (May), 186-192.
Example Articles

If relevant, critique the example articles you have been reading with respect to questionnaire development, scale development, and reliability. For any empirical article that you
have read so far in class, or for an additional article that you are welcome to choose, develop a list of potential non-response biases. Non-response bias applies broadly. For example, even scanner data could, potentially, suffer from non-response bias. Did the authors attempt to address non-response bias? Prepare a one-half-to-one-page written assessment.
Topic 5. External Validity and Demand Artifacts ((Tentative target date: March 8)
Demand Artifacts (Topic 5a)
Common-ground Readings

1. Sawyer, Alan G. (1975), Demand Artifacts in Laboratory Experiments in Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research, 1, 4, (March), 20-30.
2. Shimp, Terry, Eva Hyatt, and David Snyder (1991), A Critical Appraisal of Demand Artifacts in Laboratory Experiments in Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research, 18, 3, (December), 273-283.

15.838, Research Seminar in Marketing, Spring 2011

10

Group Assignments (Specific readings to be assigned to specific students)

1. Brinberg, David L., John G. Lynch, Jr., and Alan G. Sawyer (1992), "Hypothesized and
Confounded Explanations in Theory Tests: A Bayesian Analysis." Journal of Consumer
Research, 19, 2, (September), 139-154.
2. Perdue, Barbara C. and John O. Summers (1986), Checking the Success of Manipulations in Marketing Experiments, Journal of Marketing Research, 23, 4, (November),
317-326.
External Validity Debates (Topic 5b)
Common-ground Readings

1. Lynch, John G., Jr. (1982), On the External Validity of Experiments in Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research, 9, 3, (December), 225-239. (Erratum in March,
1983, Journal of Consumer Research, p. 455).
2. Calder, Bobby J., Lynn W. Phillips, and Alice M. Tybout (1982), The Concept of External Validity, Journal of Consumer Research, 9, 3, (December), 240-244.
Group Assignments (Specific readings to be assigned to specific students)

1. Lynch, John G., Jr. (1983), The Role of External Validity in Theoretical Research,
Journal of Consumer Research, 10, 1, (June), 109-111.
2. Calder, Bobby, Lynn Phillips, and Alice Tybout (1983), Beyond External Validity,
Journal of Consumer Research, 10, 1, (June), 112-114.
3. McGrath, Joseph E. and David Brinberg (1983), External Validity and the Research
Process: A Comment on the Calder/Lynch Dialogue, Journal of Consumer Research,
10, 1, (June), 115-124.
4. Sternthal, Brian, Alice M. Tybout, and Bobby J. Calder (1987), Confirmatory versus
Comparative Approaches to Judging Theory Tests, Journal of Consumer Research, 14,
1, (June), 114-125.
5. Sawyer, Alan G., Parker M. Worthing, and Paul E. Sendak (1979), The Role of Laboratory Experiments to Test Marketing Strategies, Journal of Marketing, 43, 3, (Summer),
60-67.
6. Winer, Russell S. (1999), Experimentation in the 21st Century: The Importance of External Validity, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 27, 3, 349-358.
7. Scandura, Terry A., & Williams, Ethlyn A. (2000), Research Methodology In Management: Current Practices, Trends, And Implications For Future Research, Academy of
Management Journal, 43, 6, (December), 1248-1264.
Example Articles

What is the external validity of the example articles that you have been reading? If there
is any measurement in the articles, identify potential demand artifacts. Did the authors
address potential demand artifacts? If you cannot find enough material in the example articles that you have read so far, here are a few additional articles.
1. Abraham, Magid M. & Leonard M. Lodish (1993), An Implemented System for Improv15.838, Research Seminar in Marketing, Spring 2011

11

ing Promotion Productivity Using Store Scanner Data, Marketing Science, 12, 3, (Summer), 248-269.
March 15.

My experience in previous PhD seminars is that the reading schedule is too ambitious and the topics too interesting that we need a catch-up date. March 15 is SIP
week for MBAs, but normal class schedule for UGs and PhDs. This date is set
aside in case we need a session to catch up on the ambitious reading schedule.

Topic 6. Mediation and Nomological Networks. (Tentative target date: March 29)
Common-ground Readings

1. Baron, Reuben M. & Kenney, David A. (1986), The Moderator-Mediator Variable Distinction In Social Psychological Research: Conceptual, Strategic, And Statistical Considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 6, 1173-1182.
Group Assignments (Specific readings to be assigned to specific students)

1. Sigall, Harold and Judson Mills (1998), Measures of Independent Variables and Mediators are Useful in Social Psychology Experiments: But Are They Necessary? Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2, 3, 218-226.
2. Spencer, Steven J, Mark P. Zanna, and Geoffrey T. Fong (2005), Establishing a Causal
Chain: Why Experiments Are often More Effective than Mediational Analyses in Examining Psychological Processes, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 6,
845-851.
3. Hutchinson, J. Wesley, Wagner A. Kamakura and John G. Lynch, Jr. (2000), Unobserved Heterogeneity as an Alternative Explanation for Reversal Effects in Behavioral
Research, Journal of Consumer Research, 27 (December), 324-344.
4. Irwin, Julie R. and Gary H. McClelland (2001) Misleading Heuristics and Moderated
Multiple Regression Models Journal of Marketing Research, 38, 1, (February), 100109.
5. Judd, Charles M., David A. Kenny, and Gary H. McClelland (2001), "Estimating and
Testing Mediation and Moderation in Within-Subjects Designs," Psychological Methods,
6, 2, 115-134.
Example Papers

Every scientific paper, even pure theory, has either an implicit or explicit nomological
network. In the example articles that you have been reading, identify the nomological
network that is implicit (explicit). In one-half-to-one-page describe the nomological network and suggest how you might test it. In case you need an additional paper to critique,
here are two more. We will also cover the Tybout and Hauser article in Topic Session 10.
1. Tybout, Alice M. and John R. Hauser (1981), "A Marketing Audit Using a Conceptual
Model of Consumer Behavior: Application and Evaluation," Journal of Marketing, 45,
3, (Summer), 81-101.
15.838, Research Seminar in Marketing, Spring 2011

12

2. Urban, Glen L., Cinda Amyx, and Antonio Lorenzon (2009), "Online Trust: State of Art,
New Frontiers, and Research Potential," Journal of Interactive Marketing, 23, 2, (May),
179-90.
3. Bart, Iakov, Venky Shankar, Fareena Sultan, and Urban, Glen L. (2005)"Are the Drivers
and Role of Online Trust the Same for all Web Sites and Customers?: A Large Scale Exploratory Empirical Study" Journal of Marketing, 69, (October) 133-52.
4. Trifts, Valerie and Gerald Hubl (2003), Information Availability and Consumer Preference: Can Online Retailers Benefit from Providing Access to Competitor Price Information?, Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13, (1 & 2), 149-159.
Topic 7. Constructed Preference (Tentative target date: April 5)

1. Wilson, Timothy and Jonathan Schooler (1991), Thinking Too Much: Introspection
Can Reduce the Quality of Preferences and Decisions, Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 60, 2, 181-192.
2. Bettman, James R., Mary Frances Luce and John W. Payne (1998), Constructive Consumer Choice Processes, Journal of Consumer Research, 25, 3, (December), 187-217.
3. Hauser, John R., Songting Dong, and Min Ding (2010), Learning to Construct Decision
Rules, (Cambridge, MA: MIT Sloan School of Management).
4. Payne, John W., James R. Bettman, and Mary Frances Luce (1996), When Time is
Money: Decision Behavior Under Opportunity-Cost Time Pressure, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 66, 2, (May), 131-152.
5. Payne, John W. , James R. Bettman and Eric J. Johnson (1988), Adaptive Strategy Selection in Decision Making, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory,
and Cognition, 14(3), 534-552.
Topic 8. Max Planck Institute vs. Princeton School of Thought
(Tentative target date: April 12)
Common-ground Readings

1. Gigerenzer, Gerd and Daniel G. Goldstein (1996), Reasoning the Fast and Frugal Way:
Models of Bounded Rationality, Psychological Review, 1003, 4, 650-669.
2. Oppenheimer, Daniel M, (2003), Not so fast! (and not so frugal!):Rethinking the Recognition Heuristic, Cognition, 90, B1-B9.
3. Gigerenzer, Gerd (1996), On Narrow Norms and Vague Heuristics: A Reply to Kahneman and Tversky (1996), Psychological Review, 103, 3, 592-596.
4. Kahneman, Daniel and Amos Tversky (1996), On the Reality of Cognitive Illusions,
Psychological Review, 103, 3, 582-591.
Group Assignments (Specific readings to be assigned to specific students)

1. Brder, Arndt (2000), Assessing the Empirical Validity of the Take the Best Heuristic
as a Model of Human Probabilistic Inference, Journal of Experimental Psychology:
Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26, 5, 1332-1346.
15.838, Research Seminar in Marketing, Spring 2011

13

2. Martignon, Laura and Ulrich Hoffrage (2002), Fast, Frugal, and Fit: Simple Heuristics
for Paired Comparisons, Theory and Decision, 52, 29-71.
3. Chase, Valerie M., Ralph Hertwig, and Gerd Gigerenzer (1998), Visions of Rationality,
Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2, 6, (June), 206-214.
4. Tversky, Amos, Shmuel Sattath, and Paul Slovic (1987), Contingent Weighting in
Judgment and Choice, Psychological Review, 95, (July), 371-384.
5. Prelec, Draen, Birger Wernerfelt, and Florian Zettelmeyer (1997), The Role Of Inference In Context Effects, Journal of Consumer Research, 24, 1, (June), 118-126.
6. Simonson, Itamar (1989), Choice Based on Reasons: The Case of Attraction and Compromise Effects, Journal of Consumer Research, 16, 2, (September), 158-174.
7. Amir, On, Dan Ariely and Ziv Carmon (2008), The Dissociation Between Monetary Assessment and Predicted Utility, Marketing Science, 27, 6, 1055-1064.
April 26.

This date is set aside in case we need a session to catch up on the ambitious reading schedule.

Topic 9. Structural Models (Tentative target date: May 3)

Common-ground Readings

1. Chintagunta, Pradeep, Tulin Erdem, Peter E. Rossi and Michel Wedel (2006), Structural
Modeling in Marketing: Review and Assessment, Marketing Science, 25, 6, (NovemberDecember), 604-616.
a. Guo, Liang (2006), Removing the Boundary Between Structural and Reduced
Form Models, Invited commentary on Chintagunta-Erdem-Rossi-Wedel, Marketing Science, 25, 6, (November-December), 629-632
b. Hartmann, Wesley R. (2006), Comment on Structural Modeling in Marketing:
Review and Assessment, Invited commentary on Chintagunta-Erdem-RossiWedel, Marketing Science, 25, 6, (November-December), 620-621.
c. Mazzeo, Michael J. (2006), Marketing Structural Models: `Keep it Real, Invited commentary on Chintagunta-Erdem-Rossi-Wedel, Marketing Science, 25, 6,
(November-December), 617-619.
d. Punj, Girish (2006), Structural Modeling in Marketing: Some Future Possibilities, Invited commentary on Chintagunta-Erdem-Rossi-Wedel, Marketing
Science, 25, 6, (November-December), 622-624.
e. Srinivasan, Kannan (2006), Empirical Analysis of Theory-Based Models in
Marketing, Invited commentary on Chintagunta-Erdem-Rossi-Wedel, Marketing
Science, 25, 6, (November-December), 635-637.
f. Sun, Baohong (2006), Dynamic Structural Consumer Models and Current Marketing Issues, Invited commentary on Chintagunta-Erdem-Rossi-Wedel, Marketing Science, 25, 6, (November-December), 625-628.
g. Chan, Tat Y. (2006), Commentary on Structural Modeling in Marketing: Review
15.838, Research Seminar in Marketing, Spring 2011

14

and Assessment, Invited commentary on Chintagunta-Erdem-Rossi-Wedel, Marketing Science, 25, 6, (November-December), 633-634.
Group Assignments (Specific readings to be assigned to specific students)

1. Gordon, Brett R. (2009), A Dynamic Model of Consumer Replacement Cycles in the PC

Processor Industry, Marketing Science, 28, 5, (September-October), 846-867.
2. Hitsch, Gunter (2006), An Empirical Model of Optimal Dynamic Product Launch and
Exit Under Demand Uncertainty, Marketing Science, 25, 1, (January-February), 25-50.
3. Hartmann, Wesley R. (2010), Demand Estimation with Social Interactions and the Implications for Targeted Marketing, Marketing Science, 29, 4, (July-August), 585-601.
4. Erdem, Tulin and Michael P. Keane (1996), Decision-making Under Uncertainty Capturing Dynamic Brand Choice Processes in Turbulent Consumer Goods Markets, Marketing Science, 15, 1, 1-20.
a. Keane, Michael and Kenneth I. Wolpin (1994), The Solution and Estimation of
Discrete Choice Dynamic Programming Models by Simulation and Interpolation
Monte Carlo Evidence, The Review of Economics and Statistics, 76,4, (November), 648-672. BACKGROUND ONLY.
b. Miller, Robert A. (1984), Job Matching and Occupational Choice, The Journal
of Political Economy, 92, 6, (December), 1086-1120. BACKGROUND ONLY.
5. Iyengar, Raghuram, Asim Ansari and Sunil Gupta (2007), A Model of Consumer Learning for Service Quality and Usage, Journal of Marketing Research, 44, (November),
529-544.
Topic 10. Quant meets Behavioral (Tentative target date: May 10. This is the last session, so

I thought it would be useful to assign some of the papers that I have co-authored that attempted
to address behavioral issues from a quantitative perspective. There are many others in the field,
but I chose my own papers so that we can talk about how the papers were developed.
Group Assignments (Specific readings to be assigned to specific students)

1. Hauser, John R., Glen L. Urban, and Bruce Weinberg (1993), "How Consumers Allocate
their Time When Searching for Information," Journal of Marketing Research, 30, 4,
(November), 452-466.
2. Hauser, John R. and Birger Wernerfelt (1990), "An Evaluation Cost Model of Consideration Sets," Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 16, (March), 393-408.
3. Hauser, John R. (1986), "Agendas and Consumer Choice," Journal of Marketing Research, 23, 2, (August), 199-212.
4. Hauser, John R. and Glen L. Urban (1986), "Value Priority Hypotheses for Consumer
Budget Plans," Journal of Consumer Research, 12, 4, (March), 446-462.
5. Tybout, Alice M. and John R. Hauser (1981), "A Marketing Audit Using a Conceptual
Model of Consumer Behavior: Application and Evaluation," Journal of Marketing, 45,
3, (Summer), 81-101.
6. Hauser, John R., and Glen L. Urban (1979), "Assessment of Attribute Importances and
15.838, Research Seminar in Marketing, Spring 2011

15

Consumer Utility Functions: von Neumann-Morgenstern Theory Applied to Consumer

Behavior," Journal of Consumer Research, 5, 4, (March), 251-262.
Topics 11. Machine Learning as a Measurement Device: Illustration of an MIT-driven Paradigm Entering Marketing. We may or may not get to this material. If not, you might want to

skim some of the papers. Depending on preferences within the class, we might switch Topic 11
with Topic 10.
Group Assignments (Specific readings to be assigned to specific students)

1. Yee, Michael, Ely Dahan, John Hauser, and James Orlin (2007), Greedoid-Based Noncompensatory Two-Stage Consideration-then-Choice Inference, Marketing Science, 26,
4, (July-August), 532-549.
2. Hauser, John R., Olivier Toubia, Theodoros Evgeniou, Daria Dzyabura, and Rene Befurt
(2010), Cognitive Simplicity and Consideration Sets, Journal of Marketing Research,
47, (June), 485-496.
3. Glen L. Urban and John R. Hauser (2004), Listening-In to Find and Explore New
Combinations of Customer Needs, Journal of Marketing, 68, (April), 72-87.
4. Evgeniou, Theodoros, Constantinos Boussios, and Giorgos Zacharia (2005), Generalized Robust Conjoint Estimation, Marketing Science, 24, 3, 415-429.
5. Evgeniou, Theodoros, Massimilano Pontil, and Olivier Toubia (2007), "A Convex Optimization Approach to Modeling Consumer Heterogeneity in Conjoint Estimation," Marketing Science, 26, 6, (November-December), 805-818.
6. Simester, Duncan I, Peng Sun and John N. Tsitsiklis (2006), Dynamic Catalog Mailing
Policies, Management Science, 52, 5, (May), 683-696.

15.838, Research Seminar in Marketing, Spring 2011

16